Honestly, when big firms come in to defend cases I am working on they are TERRIBLE. Here is an example: I have a very serious dog attack case where my client was hospitalized with an infection for three days and has nerve damage in her foot from the bite (along with a nasty scar). They hired Gordon Rees to defend because it was a pitbull and there was no insurance coverage. Probably because of Gorden Rees's "real estate practice" lol.

They have no clue what the fuck they are doing. They put a 2nd year associate on it and she gave me documents in discovery that proved the landlord knew about the dog and failed to enforce its dog policy. Moreover, they tried to argue that my client cut her own foot when there is video on their cameras of my client being attacked. They must have billed 50k so far on this case and we aren't even at depos yet. They would have been way better with a shitty insurance defense firm that knew what they were doing. The partner at Gorden Rees values the case at like 30k when this is probably a 500k case at jury trial. He is just too inexperienced at this to know any better.

Plus, most big firm attorneys have minimal to no trial experience. When I speak to them on the phone they barely know how shit works if you get down into the details.

Zing. I've dealt with Sheppard Mullen and DLA Piper on a couple of wage and hour class actions. I didn't think they stood out in any special way. They are generally pretty good at procedural things, but they do a lot of useless things in litigation that burn client money for no reason. If I was ever in a position where I needed hourly counsel, I would never hire a big firm.

I've litigated against G&R on a few cases and overseen them as insurance counsel on a couple others. This is completely on par with my experience. They have a method of responding to discovery that they teach associates that violates discovery statutes.

They offered my client a $50k settlement on one case. I got him seven figures at trial.

See, it depends on the state. In California you actually need that fuckery because discovery in California is what happens when mentally ill people are allowed to make law. Also, in federal court in the world of the new Rule 37 where you have the new 6 factor test and they've done away with "not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, blah, blah , blah" you are also better off with a lot of form objections because the law is quite unclear still. But the form objections dont mean you can just not respond. You have to have shit on top of them.

But in some states like Florida the judges are so used to short and simple discovery responses that if you even try that shit about "discovery is ongoing and we reserve the right to supplement our non-response" shit you are asking for sanctions. They have zero patience in Florida for what is no big deal in CA. CA will give you a solid two maybe 3 attempts to actually supplement before you are sanctioned. In Florida the judges will punk you way sooner. Practice if Florida is way better as a result and I would quit the law before I practiced in CA.

Depends on the type of matter. Anything regulatory -- no. Only biglaw has the experience and the connections and they are worth every penny. Litigation -- generally yes, total flame. I have no fucking clue about transactional.

This is CR, especially as to regulatory. I just hired a partner at a BIGLAW firm solely due to his weight with the SEC. I expect to pay out about 3-5M in legal fees in this matter alone, but it's completely worth it. Anything govt related requires connections in order to save $ or make the allegations disappear.

I've definitely met and worked with biglaw partners who cost absurd amounts per hour who I wouldn't want to represent me in any case, ever, even if I didn't have to pay. And I've met some who who are worth every penny of their four-digit billing rate. It depends.

Yea. Not all high end, top tier attys are at the top tier firms. You may have someone at the lower Vault range that is an expert in Y and you go to that person re Y and nothing else. They tend to have familiarity with the business overall and what others in the industry are doing (especially useful if a new law comes out and we want a conservative approach). General corp stuff can go to the cheapest bidder with decent enough work product. It's the more complex, unknown areas of the law where a high end lawyer is worth it.